WIDOW

A very effective and creepy short horror film.

A pair of high tech, back alley psychics begrudgingly show a wealthy client a raw audiovisual feed that may or may not be straight from her late husband's experience of the afterlife.

Written and Directed by Karl Mueller

Widow from Karl Mueller on Vimeo.

THE CONJURING

VERY excited for this film. Here's the official synopsis:

Before there was Amityville, there was Harrisville. Based on a true story described in the book House of Darkness, House of Light: The True Story by Andrea Perron, The Conjuring tells the horrifying tale of how world renowned paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren were called upon to help a family terrorized by a dark presence in a secluded farmhouse. Forced to confront a powerful demonic entity, the Warrens find themselves caught in the most terrifying case of their lives.

The Warrens are notorious for being FULL OF SHIT, but I'm not going to let that get in the way of enjoying a potentially creepy film.

The Conjuring comes out on July 19th.

"Can I Be Honest With You? I Am Bad Fucking News" : Why Audiences are Missing the Point of Zero Dark Thirty

After a few minutes in total darkness, surrounded by the sounds of real 9-1-1 calls during September 11th, 2001, we, the audience, are dropped into the middle of an “enhanced interrogation” (torture) of a prisoner. CIA interrogator Dan (Jason Clarke)  wants prisoner Ammar (Reda Kateb) to divulge when and where an upcoming attack is going to take place.

Ammar is beaten, bound, water-boarded and deprived of food and water; treated more like an thing than a human being.

He appeals to the only female in the room, Maya (Jessica Chastain), when he tells her, in regards to Clarke’s character “Your friend is a monster.”

There’s a brief moment where it seems like Maya, who is clearly squeamish about these techniques, will take pity on the man. But she simply says: “You can help yourself by being truthful.”

There has been a lot made about the torture in Zero Dark Thirty. Several members of Congress have stated the film is wrong for suggesting that torture lead to discovering Bin Laden’s whereabouts. Members of the Academy Awards have gone on record saying they refuse to vote for the film when it comes time for the Oscars, because it “supports torture.” 

The internet is full of people decrying the film as “propaganda” and “pro-torture.”

Every single one of these people is flat-out wrong. 

I have to wonder if these naysayers were paying attention during the film, or if indeed they even watched it at all. The controversy over ZDT is entirely fabricated, based on false notions and misunderstanding and rumor. 

Director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal took great steps to be as accurate as possible in crafting their decade spanning thriller. Indeed, when the film was first being made, Bin Laden was still at large, and the film was mostly the story about how America was failing to get the job done. The actual death of Osama Bin Laden gave the filmmakers a whole new ending to the material, but until that ending, not much changes. The film is still primarily about how badly the CIA was doing, and how it took them so very, very long to finally get Bin Laden. 

The filmmakers take a very neutral stance with the story. They don’t hammer home any sort of “message.” There’s no heavy-handed exposition about why the characters are doing what they’re doing. And as such, there aren’t any scenes where characters thoughtfully pause and say “Gee, all this torture is wrong!” Because of this subtle approach, audiences are forced to think for themselves, and that’s not something audiences like to do that often.

The torture that takes place in the film does not lead to any positive results. In fact, after weeks of torturing Ammar, Dan and Maya finally get somewhere only when they start to be nice to the prisoner, offering him food and letting him leave his holding cell. The torture gets them nowhere; instead, Ammar is a complete wreck, unable to offer any useable information, and as a result, the next attack takes place. This alone should be enough to make audiences realize that the film is in no waycondoning torture. It doesn’t come right out and say it, but the message learned from the Ammar portion of the film is this: Torture got us nowhere, let’s try something else.

It’s a little embarrassing that a film like ZDT, which, make no mistake, is a masterpiece, is getting so much flak for something that isn’t even present in the film.

The frontrunner for best picture this year, Argo, also tells of turmoil in the Middle East, and is also based on a true story. However, as countless historians have pointed out, the events in Argo have been so heavily fictionalized that it bares little resemblance to what actually happened. Meanwhile, Zero Dark Thirty has gone to such painful extremes to be as accurate as possible, and people want to crucify the film. 

The simple fact of the matter is, just because the characters in the film don’t come out and declare the evils of torture, it doesn’t mean the film supports torture. 

It’s not pretty, but the truth is torture was used in real life. To ignore that torture, and act like it never happened—that would be the very definition of propaganda that so many are incorrectly labeling ZDT with. To complain that ZDT depicts torture so brutally would be the equivalent of someone complaining that Schindler’s List featured too many scenes of Jewish people being killed during the Holocaust. These things happened. They are not something to be proud of, but to ignore or overlook them would be a flaw itself. 

In an age when few filmmakers are willing to take chances, ZDT is a film that challenges its viewers. It is the type of film that should be rewarded and studied, not just casually tossed aside because of an incorrect assumption.

Who SHOULD Win the Oscar?

Hollywood’s favorite night of giving themselves pats on the 

back and handjobs is fast approaching, so I thought I’d give you

my picks for who SHOULD win the major awards. It doesn’t 

necessarily  mean they WILL win—but they should.

Best Actor: 

Daniel Day-Lewis for LINCOLN: This is pretty much a no-brainer. Day-Lewis should, and

 likely will, walk away with the award. He’s one of the best actors around, and he was able

 to breathe real life into the marble-statue of Abraham Lincoln. We’ll never get to see how

 the real Lincoln talked and walked, but I’m willing to bet all the five dollar bills in the world

 that Day-Lewis’ performance is pretty darn close. (note: any other year, I would say this

 award should go to Joaquin Phoenix for his haunting performance in THE MASTER, but 

you just can’t beat Day-Lewis).

Best Supporting Actor:

Christoph Waltz for DJANGO UNCHAINED: This is a hard one. All of the actors

 nominated in this category gave great performances, especially Tommy Lee Jones in

 LINCOLN and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in THE MASTER. But Waltz is so damn fun in

 this role, his charm is irresistible.

Best Actress:

Jessica Chastain for ZERO DARK THIRTY: The media has pretty much all but declared

 this award for Jennifer Lawrence, and she will likely win, and that’s a damn shame. Don’t

 get me wrong, I love JLAW as much as the next fellow. She seems like a charming young

 lady, and she does give a fine performance in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK. But

 Jessica Chastain’s work in ZERO DARK THIRTY is one of the strongest performances

 I’ve ever seen on film. It’s not a very showy performance, but it’s a thing of beauty.

 Chastain’s character Maya is in almost every frame of this film, and even when she’s not 

saying anything, you can constantly see the gears turning behind the eyes of this

 character. She is obsessive and determined, and in the final moments of the movie, she 

finally lets her guard down and we as audience see what a terrible toll this manhunt has

 taken on her. This award should be a lock for Chastain, and the fact that it isn’t goes to 

show you how flawed the Oscars can be.

Best Supporting Actress: 

Amy Adams for THE MASTER: Now, who am I kidding? This year this award might as

 well be called The Anne Hathaway Award for Excellence. Hathaway will be going home

 with this award come Oscar night, and it wont be entirely undeserved. Her performance is

 one of the best things about the messy train-wreck that is LES MISERABLES. But the

fact of the matter is, Hathaway doesn’t really do much. Her performance of I Dreamed a

Dream is no doubt a show-stopper, but she’s more or less out of the picture after that

scene. Amy Adams’ performance in THE MASTER, however, is a tour de force. Adams’

character first seems like a timid wife, but we slowly begin to realize how cunning and 

ruthless she can be. She also delivers perhaps the most awkward handjob in film 

history…

Best Original Screenplay:

Quentin Tarantino for DJANGO UNCHAINED: Tarantino’s bloody, brutal, hilarious 

screenplay for DJANGO UNCHAINED is the stuff cinema dreams are made of. The 

screenplays for ZERO DARK THIRTY and MOONRISE KINGDOM both come very,very 

close to getting my pick, but when it comes down to it, Tarantino’s screenplay is just too 

damn good to ignore. 

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Tony Kushner for LINCOLN: Chris Terrio’s script for ARGO will probably win this, but

really it should go to Kushner. Kushner turned what could’ve easily been a boring cradle

to the grave bio-pic into a heartfelt, touching, and surprisingly funny slice-of-life film about

the final days of Abraham Lincoln. Kushner took Doris Kearns Goodwins massive book 

Team of Rivals and whittled it down into a tight, fast-paced story.

Best Director:

Kathryn Bigelow for ZERO DARK THIRTY: Okay, this is cheating, because Bigelow

wasn’t even nominated—but remember, this is my list of who SHOULD win. And god 

damn it, Bigelow SHOULD WIN. The fact that the Academy chose NOT to nominate her is

a joke. Bigelow’s direction for ZDT is masterful—she has complete and total control of 

everything that is going on, and moves the story along at a break-neck speed. The

Academy should all get a swift kick in the ass for overlooking her this year. That said, if I

have to pick someone who was ACTUALLY NOMINATED, I would go with Steven 

Spielberg for LINCOLN. It’s the SECOND Best Directed film of the year…

And finally:

Best Picture:

 

Zero Dark Thirty: It seems like ARGO is going to win this award, since it has won pretty

much every other award in this category, and frankly, the Academy LOVES movies 

ABOUT movies, so it’s probably a safe bet that ARGO will win. But, to borrow a phrase 

from the film—Argo fuck yourself. ZERO DARK THIRTY is hands-down the best film of

the year. What could’ve simply been a propaganda piece, or a heavy-handed diatribe 

about post 9-11 politics is, in the hands of Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal, a break-neck 

thriller for our times. The lengthy hunt for Osama Bin Laden is stripped down to one

woman’s relentless quest to get her job done. The ending raid on Bin Laden’s compound 

is one of the best pieces of directing ever put up on the silver screen, and while many in

the media have talked out of their asses about the “message” of the film, Bigelow and

Boal never point fingers or even take a specific stance—they present the story as-is, and 

let the audience draw their own conclusions. This is challenging, thrilling filmmaking, and it 

should be rewarded.

So there you have it. Feel free to tell me YOUR opinions/picks.

You think you are safe. You are not.

An Open Letter to Dan Aykroyd

Dear Dan Aykroyd,

How are you? Are you ready for Christmas? Boy, I'm sure not! It's funny how the holidays sneak up on us, isn't it?

Anyway, please give up on trying to make GHOSTBUSTERS 3.

You seem like a pretty nice guy. I really enjoy that special you did on UFO's. I watch it on Netflix Instant when I'm bored. Not that I think it's well made--it isn't, it looks like crap (not your fault); and not that I believe in any of the stuff in it (I certainly think it's possible there is other life in the galaxy, but I doubt the existence of UFO's).

ALMOST as good as Nirvana: Unplugged

The reason I enjoy the UFO special so much is that you seem like a real interesting, intelligent guy. Your ideas may be a little kooky, but you have real conviction about them, and seem pretty knowledgeable. You also look really cool smoking cigarettes, which you do throughout the special.

I've never tried your Crystal Skull vodka, because it costs like 99 dollars and I don't have that kind of cash to spend on booze, but I really like the skull-bottle it comes in, and hope to someday own one and fill it with M&M's or jellybeans or something.

Indiana Jones and the Pricey Booze

Over the last decade or so, there's been much talk about a GHOSTBUSTERS 3, mostly from you. You've been saying for years you have a really good idea for one, and you're really excited to do it. And while the rest of the 'Busters seem game, Bill Murray is constantly the thorn in your side, saying "NO THANKS" repeatedly, occasionally changing his mind to say yes, then going right back to saying NO again. 

You've gone on record several times saying that you'd actually go right ahead and make GHOSTBUSTERS 3 without Bill Murray. This is a terrible, terrible idea. Part of what makes the Ghostbusters films successful is the dynamic of all of you guys, but let's be honest here, the real star of those films is Bill Murray. No offense to, say, Ernie Hudson, but if they announced a GHOSTBUSTERS 3 with Bill Murray but without Ernie Hudson, I don't think anyone would really give a shit. Dr. Peter Venkman is one of the all-time great film characters. He's a charming smart-ass that audiences love to watch. He can do truly mean things (like in part 1, where he frequently shocks that poor grad student) and still be likable. In short, he's the best thing about the movies.

Now, I've heard that Bill Murray can be a real pain in the ass. However, I don't think he keeps turning you down to be mean; rather, I think he keeps turning you down because GHOSTBUSTERS 3 is a terrible fucking idea.

Is it possible to make a good GHOSTBUSTERS 3? Sure, anything is possible. But it really feels like that ship has sailed. While it would be funny at first to see you guys all fat and old running around busting ghosts, you kind of already did that gag in Part 2.

Also, let's get into some of the potential plot lines that have been mentioned over the years. Bill Murray said several times that he would only come back if his character got to be a ghost--meaning, Peter Venkman has to die. You said you'd be fine with that. What are you, CRAZY??? Peter Venkman dying in a Ghostbusters film would be devastating  I don't care how tastefully or comically it would be handled. No one wants to see Bill Murray as a crappy CGI ghost, unless it's in a remake of GHOST DAD, with Bill Murray as the Ghost Dad.

Another potential plot point that's been tossed around is that the film would be about the old Ghostbusters training new, young Ghostbusters to take over. Ugh. No. I can just see it now, actors like Jonah Hill and Seth Rogen and, I dunno, Paul Rudd maybe, up there on the screen, learning the ropes. Nothing against those actors (who DOESN'T love Paul Rudd??), but this is stupid. People like Ghostbusters BECAUSE of the Ghostbusters--the original guys.

You know, THESE GUYS

We don't want to see new guys taking over; that's like when fat, bloated, plastic surgery scarred Axl Rose goes on stage with a bunch of random dudes and claims to be Guns-N-Roses; or when Billy Corgan gets a whole new band and still calls them The Smashing Pumpkins. It's not the same. People don't want that. They want what they grew up loving, not a facsimile.

Recently you talked about not only making a part three, but a part 4 & 5 as well. Holy SHIT, stop it! Put down that expensive crystal skull filled with vodka and realize that it's time to throw in the towel. If you really think you have a good enough script for GHOSTBUSTERS 3, take it to Dark Horse comics or something and get them to adapt it into a graphic novel. That way, the artist can draw you guys all a little younger and thinner, and you can probably get Bill Murray to sign off on his likeness a little easier than his actual performance.

I wish you only the best, Mr. Aykroyd. I hope you have a really nice Christmas and New Years. And I hope to god your New Year's resolution for 2013 is to never, ever bring up GHOSTBUSTERS 3 again.

Sincerely,
Chris Evangelista

art by Brandon Bird

Review: LINCOLN

LINCOLN
2012
Directed by Uwe Boll Steven Spielberg


Who was the greatest American president? If you said James K. Polk, you're 100 % correct.

But a close second is Abraham Lincoln. There are a lot of people on the internet, aka the cesspool of humanity, that like to knock Lincoln off his pedestal, and say things like "He didn't REALLY hate slavery!" or "He was a TYRANT!" or "What's up with that BEARD?"

To those people I say: shut up, morons.

Yes, it's true that Lincoln has become a mythic figure, and that there is a more human, flawed side to that myth. But don't be a silly idiot. Lincoln was a great man, and a great president, and if you don't believe me, read a fucking book or two.

Sadly there haven't be many great films about the great man (except, of course, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure). People have tried, and made valiant efforts. But no film really seemed to take Lincoln from a marble statue and turn him into a living, breathing man.

UNTIL NOW.

LINCOLN, the latest film from Steven "the Beard" Spielberg, takes a unique approach to the story of the 16th president of the United States. Rather than your standard cradle-to-the-grave biopic, LINCOLN focuses instead on a period near the end of the Lincoln's presidency and life: specifically, the period where Lincoln is trying to get the 13th Amendment passed, thus ending slavery.

The Civil War is dying down, and the Union has all but declared victory. This is a mixed blessing for Lincoln: it's obviously great that the war is ending, however, he fears that once the war is completely ended, there will be no real rush to abolish slavery, and he'll have no chance getting his amendment passed. So, Lincoln tasks Secretary of State William Seward (a wonderful and warm David Strathairn) with rounding up three men (John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson and James Spader--all fantastic, especially Spader, who steals every scene he's in) with gathering enough votes to pull the whole thing off.

Be excellent to each other....and PARTY ON, DUDES!

Along the way Lincoln has to deal with his wife Mary Todd (Sally Field) who is slowly sinking into insanity and his rebellious son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is contractually required to be in all movies these days), who wants to go join the fight, much to his parents' chagrin.

Lincoln also has to reign in fiery abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones, who gives one of the best performances of his career). Stevens is seen as a "radical," and his outbursts could derail the whole process.

This movie is a delight to behold. It never feels dull, or slow. Every scene crackles with energy, thanks to Spielberg's rather reserved direction, Tony Kushner's fire-cracker of a script, and top-of-their-game performances from literally the entire cast.

But of course, the real attraction here is Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis is one of the best actors we have, and he seems to turn in "career best" performances in every single role he takes (with the weird misfire of the dull musical NINE). And once again, he comes through. Day-Lewis becomes Lincoln. We will never REALLY know how Lincoln talked, and walked, and acted--but watching Day-Lewis is probably the closest we'll ever get. His Lincoln is a tender, reserved man, with a high voice and a rumpled, unkempt appearance. And he loves to tell stories. Any time Lincoln wants to get a point across to his squabbling cabinet members, he regals them with a humour story, and you can't help but hang on every word. The real Lincoln suffered from depression, and his humor helped him work through the melancholy feelings that overcame him. Day-Lewis understands that, and embodies it fully.

Lincoln makes blankets a fashion statement.

LINCOLN isn't a flawless film, though. The very first scene of the film feels just a little too "staged," and doesn't really flow with the more realistic tone the rest of the film takes. Also, while his performance is fine, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Robert Lincoln feels useless here. I'm sure he was added to provide more glimpses into Lincoln's personal life, but the character doesn't seem to add much to the film, and could've easily been left on the sidelines.

There's also a brief shot near the end where the image of Lincoln appears inside the flame of a lantern that is almost painfully corny and on-the-nose, but thankfully it ends before you can roll your eyes too much. And while we're on the subject of the end, personally I think Spielberg could've ended things before the assassination (SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!). He makes a wise choice by having the assassination happen off-screen, but before the whole sequence, we are left with the image of Lincoln saying goodbye to his staff, uttering the words "I would like to stay, but I fear I must go," and quietly walking out of the White House, bathed in shadows. In my humble opinion, that would've been a perfect spot to cut to the credits. But the extra stuff doesn't diminish the impact of the film, so I can't complain too much.

"You're gonna love this next scene; it ends with a real BANG!"
"Ugh, terrible."

LINCOLN is that rare Hollywood biopic that is uplifting and inspirational without being cloying and overly manipulative. Daniel Day-Lewis should be going off to the store right about now to buy some extra Oscar Wax, because I can't think of a single actor this year who is more deserving of an Academy Award.

Until someone invents a time machine, we'll never really be able to see Abraham Lincoln as a living, breathing person. So while we wait for that day, this film will be the best option we have.

I give LINCOLN Four out of Four Stovepipe Hats.

Evil Dead trailer (for real this time)

I posted a bootleg a few days ago, but here's the real HD, red band deal. I gotta say, I'm excited for this.


                                                                 

Review: SINISTER

SINISTER
2012
Directed by Scott Derrickson


It's so hard to get horror right.

"Horror" is subjective. What scares one person won't always scare another. But there is a basic structure and format to good, effective horror that when it's done right, it can send chills up the spine of even the most cynical of fans.

SINISTER is the horror film to beat this year. The year isn't over yet, but I'll go out on a limb and say that SINISTER is the scariest film of 2012. The film is brought to us by producer Jason Blum, who also produces the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY films and INSIDIOUS. He's pretty much got this thing down to a science at this point. He's even opening his own haunted house in California.

SINISTER, however, is on another level though. The PA films, and INSIDIOUS, while both containing scares, also have a level of fun silliness to them. They're like haunted houses at carnivals. You get a good scare or two, then you walk out laughing.

SINISTER isn't interested in giving you a chuckle. It wants you to leave the theater shaken. And it succeeds.

The story is about true crime writer Ellison, played by Ethan Hawke. Ten years ago he had a big hit with his true crime book "Kentucky Blood." However, ever since then, he's been chasing glory. His other books have failed, and one book even ended up helping a real killer go free.

Ellison desperately wants to recapture his fame and fortune, and he thinks he knows just how to do it. He moves his wife and children into a new house, and not just any house. As we see at the beginning of the film, in chilling detail, the house was the scene of a murder. A family was hung from a tree in the yard, and their daughter went missing. The crime was never solved.

Ellison doesn't tell his family they just moved into a murder house. He knows his wife Tracy (Juliet Rylance) will freak out--and rightfully so. So he keeps everyone in the dark as he goes about trying to solve the mystery.

However, the first night in the house, Ellison finds a box marked HOME MOVIES in the attic. The box contains film canisters as well as a Super 8 projector. He sets up a theater in his office and watches.

To his horror he discovers the films contain not only the murders of the family that lived in his house, but several other murders spread across the years. He does some digging and discovers that all the murders are similar in that they involve families killed, and one of the children missing.

This should be enough to freak anyone out, but Ellison also begins hearing strange bumps in the night. His son begins experiencing intense night terrors. His daughter draws pictures of dead girls. Scorpions, snakes and a mean looking dog invade his property. And then he notices a strange, ghoulish figure appearing in the snuff films. With the help of a local professor (played by Vincent D'Onofrio, who literally Skype's his performance in), he believes this figure might be an ancient deity named Bagul; a nasty monster who eats the souls of children.

There's a lot more going on here, but to tell you would spoil the fun. And by fun I mean dread and terror.

SINISTER is relentless in its goal to scare you. There are moments of levity here and there, but for the most part, SINISTER wants to make you uncomfortable. From its weird, jarring and haunting score to the brutal snuff films Ellison watches almost nightly, SINISTER takes hold of your nerves and pulls them in every direction possible.

Hawke does a great job carrying the film. His character, when you get right down to it, is kind of an asshole, but Hawke makes him likable and believable. His family could've been a bit more fleshed out, especially his wife, who spends most of the film either chastising Ellison or the children. But these are minor flaws and come nowhere close to derailing the story, as the film is really about Ellison and his own personal descent into terror and doubt.

Director Scott Derrickson, who has had a very spotty film career up till now, does his best work ever here. He's able to fill every angle, every shot with almost overwhelming dread. There's nothing outwardly scary about the house Ellison and his family move into, but with impenetrable darkness and shadows lurking at night, Derrickson is able to convey real unrest and unease.

The script, by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill, is filled to the brim with creepy ideas. The writers know exactly what scares people, and they throw everything they can think of right at the audience.

SINISTER will be released wide on October 12th. It's a perfect movie for Halloween season. It's the type of horror movie that sticks with you; that makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up as you watch it.

It's the type of horror movie that haunts you long after you've gone home from the theater, gotten into bed, and turned off all the lights.

DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT MY BAD REPUTATION: The Village

Don't Give A Damn About My Bad Reputation is a feature I've wanted to do for some time. Basically, I will be taking a look at films that have really bad reputations, and giving my opinion on if they were judged too harshly (or if they really are just dog shit).

THE VILLAGE
2004
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan


It may be hard to believe now that his name has sort of become a joke, but there was a time when M. Night Shyamalan was on top of the world.

After The Sixth Sense, audiences and critics were madly in love with this man with the hard to pronounce name. He was on a pretty damn good run too, with pretty much all of his films following The Sixth Sense being well regarded and making good coin at the box office.

Then came The Village.

The Village was the beginning of the end for Shyamalan. He followed it with the abysmal Lady in the Water, and then The Happening, where killer trees make people kill themselves. I have a soft spot in my heart for The Happening, just because it's so bat-shit insane that I refuse to believe he was being serious when he made the film. I like to think of it as a big-budget version of Birdemic.

But back to The Village. As was the case with all of Shyamalan's films at the time, The Village had a lot of hype built around it. The marketing for the film made it look like it was going to be straight-up horror. Cast member Sigourney Weaver was quoted as saying after she read the screenplay she had nightmares. People were excited for the film.

And then it came out and people more or less took a big shit on it.

So what's the deal with The Village? Is it really a big old mess, or did it get unfairly maligned?

The film is set in a small village, seemingly cut off from the world, during an undisclosed time in the past. The village is surrounded by ominous woods, and the town elders warn people to never cross the barrier into those woods. For you see, spooky creatures called Those We Don't Speak Of lurk there. The village has a truce with them--they don't come into the village as long as the villagers stay out of their woods.

Everyone seems to live in peace and tranquility--until animals start turning up dead and skinned, and the creatures start coming into the town late at night and giving everyone the creeps.

Nestled into this plot is the story of Ivy, played wonderfully by Bryce Dallas Howard. Ivy is blind, but she possesses the ability to see people's "colors" (or auras, if you will.) Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix) has a big crush on Ivy. So does the mentally handicapped Noah (Adrien Brody, who is fantastic at playing these type of characters).

As the story unfolds, Lucius is badly wounded, and the only hope of saving him is to retrieve "medicines" from the world beyond the woods. It's up to Ivy to set off to retrieve them, risking her life for the man she loves.

Here's the biggest problem with The Village: the advertising.

Every trailer, every commercial, every print ad went out of its way to literally SCREAM into the audiences face that this was going to be a BIG ASS HORROR FILM. It was going to scare your bones out of your body. You were going to shit the bed at night, shivering under your sheets. This was a film from the director of THE SIXTH SENSE, and it was going to send you to an early grave with fright!

None of that is true. Yes, there are creepy moments in the film--after all, there is a subplot about monsters. But The Village is NOT a horror film. It is a drama and a love story with supernatural elements.

The film looks gorgeous. Say what you will about Shyamalan as a writer (and I agree, the man has drastically lost his edge in the writing department), he really knows how to shoot a film. He's assisted greatly by the breathtaking cinematography of the always fantastic Roger Deakins. Deakins makes each shot look like an Andrew Wyeth painting come to life.

The costumes are perfect. The sets realistic. The actors believable. And the soundtrack, by James Newton Howard with violin accompaniment by superstar violinist Hilary Hahn is heartbreakingly beautiful; one of the best scores I've ever heard, up there with Nick Cave and Warren Ellis' soundtrack for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. To put it bluntly, The Village is a very good movie.

But there's another problem, besides the misleading marketing: the trademark Shyamalan Twist Ending.

At the time this movie came out, Shyamalan's name was synonymous with twist endings. The Sixth Sense, after all, had one of the biggest twist endings in film history. Shyamalan sort of got shoe-horned into this task; it seemed like he felt he HAD to give each film a twist ending, or else his fans would be disappointed.

The Village does have a twist ending; several, actually. The following is a SPOILER, but since the movie is eight years old, it shouldn't matter at this point.

Our first twist comes when we discover that there ARE no monsters. The town elders have been making them up to sort of the keep the townsfolk in line. Yet, when Ivy goes into the woods, she does indeed run into a monster. The monster however turns out to be Noah in a costume--it was Noah who was killing and skinning all the animals in town.

Then comes the even BIGGER twist. Through the entire film, we are made to believe these events are taking place in the past. It turns out that's not true at all--it's the present, and the elders have again pulled the wool over the younger townsfolk's eyes. They set up the village as a sort of experiment; a way to escape the horrors of the "real world."

The more you think about this twist, the dumber it seems, and I suspect this also played a part in derailing the film for a lot of people. But this twist, despite it's large implications, is presented in a very after-the-fact way. It doesn't really hold much bearing on the plot, so really it should be easy to get over it if you think it's dumb.

So, was The Village unjustly maligned? I think so. And now--years after its release--might be a perfect time to revisit the film without all the stigma. If you go into the film expecting more of a dramatic thriller than a shock-till-you-drop horror film, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Final Verdict (Give it a Second Chance or It Turns out it Really IS Bad!): Give it a Second Chance.

Review: I AM A GHOST

I Am a Ghost is one of those rare ghost stories that's told from the perspective of the one haunting the house, rather than those being haunted.

Anna Ishida is Emily, a woman from a seemingly Victorian time stuck in a loop. She keeps reliving the same random events every day, and she also finds herself communicating with a medium she can not see, named Sylvia. 

Emily died in the house she haunts, and Sylvia is trying to get her to move on--but it's not quite working, and neither woman can figure out why.

To say any more would spoil the film, so that's all you need to know. The less you know, the more effective this film is.

I Am a Ghost is a slow-burn, reminiscent of Ti West's House of the Devil, which also features a female character trapped in a spooky old house, slowly building towards a frightening climax.

This is essentially a one-woman show, and Anna Ishida does a fine job of carrying the film. She's not as polished as a "Hollywood actress", but this helps with the out-of-time nature of the character. 

Again, this is a slow-burn of a movie; some people may lose patience after seeing Emily cook the same two eggs for the fifth time, but the build up is worth it. When the horror finally kicks in, it's all the more effective.

It always helps to have a good setting for your film, especially if your film is of a lower-budget, and the old house in I Am a Ghost is perfect. It's clearly a real house--not a set--adding realism and a nicely preserved historical look. Director H.P. Mendoza employees a few nifty tricks to keep the mostly quiet movie engaging; for one thing, the film itself is presented in a frame reminiscent of an old photograph, with rounded edges. Split-screens and washed-out colors help with atmosphere and actually contribute to the film, rather than just feeling like they were added to "look cool."

If there's one complaint I have with the film, it's the (vocal) performance of Jeannie Barroga, as the psychic Sylvia. Never seen and only heard, Barroga's line-delivery feels very flat, almost as if she's just reading her lines off a piece of paper into a microphone, and not putting much feeling into them. But that's not enough of a problem to derail the movie. 

At 74 minutes, I Am a Ghost never over-stays its welcome. It knows just when to end, and doesn't drag things out any further than necessary. 

It may not be the slickest of ghost movies, but it's certainly one of the more effective, with a final act that will leave you chilled and disturbed. 

Shit I'd Like Movies to Stop Doing

Movies! Who doesn't love them? "No one" is the answer. But the fact of the matter is about 5000 movies come out a year (citation needed) and only about four of them are good--and they're usually directed by Christopher Nolan.

I myself am a movie junkie. There's many a time where I'll melt a DVD or Blu Ray down on a giant spoon, and inject the liquid goop into my veins. Mmm, the warmth of it all.

So it is with my keen and observant knowledge of all things film that I would like to present a list of SHIT I'D LIKE MOVIES TO STOP DOING, counting down from 5 to 1.

5. People falling down/getting hit in the balls/getting hurt in comedy movie trailers.

Now, don't get me wrong. People falling down is funny. If I'm in the subway and I see an old man fall onto the tracks, I let off a good chortle or two. But nothing turns me off of a comedy movie more than a scene in a trailer where a character falls/gets hit in the junk. 

Think about it, this is in nearly EVERY comedy movie trailer ever. It's not so much the act that bothers me, it's the cartoony sound-effects that accompany it, followed sometimes by whatever pop song is playing to suddenly stop, sometimes with a fake record scratch--as if someone was playing some Passion Pit records and suddenly pulled the needle off and said "HOLY SHIT THAT GUY JUST FELL DOWN!"

A recent example was featured in the trailer for The Five-Year Engagement, which I didn't see despite the fact that it features such lovely ladies as Emily Blunt and Alison Brie. In the trailer, Emily Blunt's character spots some little girl holding a crossbow. 

"AREN'T YOU THE CUTEST THING!" says Emily Blunt.

"I'M KATNISS!" says the stupid little girl, referencing the Hunger Games because that's popular with all the kids these days. Then she shoots Emily Blunt in the leg and Emily Blunt almost screams a curse word, but it cuts away real fast. Ha Ha Ha--KILL ME.

I'M PRECOCIOUS! 

Let's Encyclopedia Brown this shit for a moment: first of all, who the fuck sees a child holding a LOADED CROSSBOW and says "HOW CUTE!" Christ, children are monsters. If a child is holding a bottle of shampoo there's a 98 % chance that child will turn that thing into a weapon. So right away, Emily Blunt finding this "cute" stretches logic into the Twilight Zone. Not to mention the stupid pop-culture reference to the Hunger Games, and then the age-old comedy trailer favorite: a character gets hurt and is about to curse and we cut away. "MOTHER FU--" ::in theaters July 2d!!:: 

Terrible.

4. Really bad CGI. 

We are in the 21st century, the age of rocket cars and robot maids. And yet movies continue to feature really shitty CGI effects.

Remember Jurassic Park? That movie came out in 1993, and it has better CGI in it than movies today. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? Granted, not every movie has a Spielberg-sized budget. But the solution for that is: if you don't have the money for convincing CGI, don't put a fully CGI character in your movie.

But you know what movie DID have a Spielberg-sized budget? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull--because he directed that.

And Christ that had some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. I'm looking at you, CARTOON GOPHER that opens the movie:

C'mon, this is blatantly a fucking CARTOON. 

Another good recent example is Wrath of the Titans, that movie no one saw. Here's a pic of the Cyclops from that movie:

Beware the Walking Penis Man!

LOOK AT THAT THING. HOLY CRAP. 

3. American Remakes of Recent Foreign Films

The Raid recently came out here in STATES. It was a pretty fun movie, full of people beating the shit out of each other. And already they want to remake it for "America." Why? Sure, the Raid is subtitled, but no one is going to see the Raid for the dialog. They want to see foreign people kick each other in the skull. And the reason the fighting in The Raid is so good is because pretty much everyone in that movie is a real martial artist/stunt man.

An American remake will cast some bland actor and use a stunt-double for all his fight scenes. WHY BOTHER?

Perhaps the most egregious recent example of this trend is the remake of Let the Right One In, called LET ME IN. 

Let the Right One In is a near-perfect movie (except for that scene with the awful CGI cats--hey, bad CGI again!). It's a beautiful, heart-felt movie that pumps new blood into the horribly anemic vampire genre. 

Remember this scene? Let's do it again! Only more yellow!

So what do we do?? Remake it! Now--there was room here for something good. For one thing, the original movie was based on the book, and the book has a LOT of stuff in it that the movie doesn't. Filmmaker Matt Reeves had an opportunity to do a more faithful adaptation of the book and make something different. Instead he just did a shot-for-shot remake and added some dumb subplot about a cop looking for Satanists. Thanks, America! 

2. Passing the Torch / Movies skewed towards "younger audiences."

Now, I get it. Movie studios want to make money, and who goes to the movies the most? Dumb kids. So studios have gotten into this mode where most films are skewed towards youth. Have you ever noticed how a lot of movies these days feature casts made up of people who look 19 years old? 

Personally, I call foul on this. When I was a kid, I loved movies that featured ADULTS. Yeah, I liked some movies that had kids, like the Monster Squad. But when I was a kid, I didnt want to BE a kid. I wanted to be an ADULT (note to young me: you're an idiot). So I'd rather watch movies about adults doing adult things--things I could only dream of doing, like shooting people in the face.

Lumped into this is the "passing the torch" idea that has been infecting older franchises. 

Die Hard 4, aka LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, sucked ass. It had a lot of things wrong with it--especially that PG-13 rating. But one of the worst mistakes it made was trying to appeal to a "younger audience" by giving John McClane a kid-sidekick, played by that guy from Jeepers Creepers. And they're doing it AGAIN with Die Hard 5, which is currently filming and features McClane teaming up with his SON.

I LOVED Die Hard movies when I was younger, and I sure as shit didn't want Bruce Willis running around with some kid. I wanted to see him covered in blood, shooting people and making jokes.

Another example is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Again, there was a lot wrong with the film (terrible CGI included!). But high on the list of wrongs was adding Indy's son MUTT WILLIAMS. There were several interviews before the film came out where professional moron George Lucas said he could easily see the Indy franchise continuing with MUTT in the lead. NO ONE WANTS TO FUCKING SEE THAT. NO ONE.

"People are going to LOVE that scene where you swing through the trees with some cartoon monkeys!"

Bill Murray caught a lot of flack for refusing to do Ghostbuster 3. Not from me though--I applaud the man. Because do you know what the plot of Ghostbusters 3 was going to be? It was going to be the Ghostbusters training a bunch of new, young Ghostbusters. NO ONE WANTS TO FUCKING SEE THAT EITHER. Do you know why people like the ghostbusters movies? IT'S BECAUSE OF THE GHOSTBUSTERS. They like the original cast, they don't want fucking, Jonah Hill strapping on a proton pack. That's stupid.

I would rather watch a movie with the four original guys, all fucking fat and gross and old, than watch some dumb-ass movie where they train young, hip new ghostbusters.

1. BASED ON A TRUE STORY horror movies.

This is an age-old ploy. I mean, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre did it for crying out loud. But back then, that was a fresh and cool thing to do. "Oh my god, this movie about a cannibal chainsaw family REALLY HAPPENED!" (it didn't.)

These days, however, every other dumb horror movie that comes out gets slapped with a BASED ON A TRUE STORY or INSPIRED BY TRUE EVENTS. I'm not talking about found-footage movies either.

Recently, The Silent House (which, hey, was an American remake of a recent foreign film! there's a pattern here!) featured INSPIRED BY TRUE EVENTS in both the trailer and on the poster. NO IT WASN'T. STOP LYING. Unless you mean at some point, somewhere, in history, some woman was in a house, then yes I guess it is based on true events.

INSPIRED BY TOTAL BULLSHIT.

The Mothman Prophecies is another example. I like that movie, and yes, a lot of the stuff that happened in it was inspired by a true story. But it was also so far removed from what "really" happened that it's just pointless to even put that tag in there. But again, I guess people think that sells tickets. 

Which reminds me, did you know this blog post is BASED ON ACTUAL EVENTS?????????????????????????????????????